A husband did not have
to reimburse his wife for community funds he used to care for his ailing
mother, the Third District Court of Appeal held yesterday.

Reversing a ruling by
Placer Superior Court Commissioner Colleen M. Nichols, the justices concluded a
spouse’s duty to support a needy parent is a community obligation.

Justice Vance W. Raye,
writing for the Court of Appeal, explained that adult children are obligated by
state law to care for their parents, much as parents are obligated to care for
their minor children.

The justice cited Family
Code Sec. 4400, which imposes a support obligation with respect to a parent who
is in need and unable to maintain himself or herself by work, and Penal Code
Sec. 270c, under which adult children may be guilty of a misdemeanor for
failing to provide necessary food, clothing, shelter, or medical attendance for
an indigent parent.

An obligation imposed by
statute is a “debt” for which the community estate is liable if it was incurred
by either spouse before or during marriage, Raye said. Spending community funds
to satisfy the obligation thus does not constitute an unauthorized gift
requiring reimbursement, he wrote.

Nichols had told the
husband’s counsel, “You know as well as I do that you’re under no obligation to
pay for your parent’s expenses just as you’re under no legal obligation to pay
for your child’s expenses once they are over the age of eighteen.”

The commissioner
accordingly ordered Charles A. Leni to make an equalizing payment of $12,000 to
his ex-wife, Constance P. Leni, for spending a portion of proceeds from the
sale of the marital residence to care for his mother.

The Lenis wed in 1977
and eventually divorced in 2003. The wife’s first petition for divorce, filed
in 1985 after the parties initially separated, was dismissed when they
reconciled.

Escrow instructions
pertaining to the sale of their home during their period of separation were
never amended, however. The instructions provided for “proceeds to be split
50/50” and as a result, each party received an equal share of sale proceeds
following their reconciliation.

At trial, the husband
asserted that the escrow instructions were sufficient to transmute the proceeds
of the sale from community property to separate property, which he was then
free to use to help his mother. Both the commissioner and the Court of Appeal
rejected that argument.

The “50/50” notation did
not satisfy the rigid statutory requirement for an express declaration that the
property’s character is being changed, Raye wrote, noting that the parties
reconciled and the divorce was dismissed by the time escrow closed.

Instructions
notwithstanding, the husband could use community funds to fulfill statutory
obligations to his mother, the justice said.

On remand, he wrote, the
husband was entitled to establish that he used the funds at issue to support
his mother.

Justices George
Nicholson and Ronald B. Robie concurred in the opinion.